Russian army under equipped?

[Battlefront.com]

Cross posted

This is one is something that I've brought up before:

12 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

So the point I'm getting to is that Russian and US troops are likely both entirely adequate at being hammers.  The difference emerges once you take Russian forces out of roles where the hammer is correct, or where something is better than being a hammer, they tend to suffer. 

When soldiers find themselves in a situation they are not prepared to deal with, they tend to do one of three things:

1.  Panic (and there's all kinds of fun that comes from that)

2.  Fall back (attempt to maneuver to safer conditions)

3.  Fight in place (concede initiative in order to survive)

What they do not do, at least initially, is come up with a creative plan to address whatever the unexpected situation is.  Which is why NATO has a standard drill (i.e. rote behavior) to push through an ambush with maximum firepower.  Thinking is a luxury when the world turns upside down for a soldier. This is as true for the top end of US forces as much as it is the low end of Russian forces.

The difference between units and forces is how much time it takes to formulate an alternative to the three things I just noted and how "correct" that plan is for the given circumstances.  The better the doctrine, the better the training, and the more experienced a force is (as a whole) the better the likely outcome.  The opposite is also true.

To expect a Russian VDV unit with 25% conscripts and 2-3 years average time in boots for the rest to perform to the same standards as a US airborne unit is silly.  And I do mean silly.  The VDV unit *might* respond to unexpected circumstances just as quickly (which is what Vladimir is arguing), but odds are that it's solution to the problem will be inferior.  Inferior plans in combat tend to get people killed.  Sometimes a lot of them.

In a matchup between NATO and Russia there would be a lot of unpleasant stuff for NATO forces to experience.  Many of their units will not handle the stress well and will, at a minimum, fall back or lose initiative.  It will be a nasty surprise to many, for sure.  However, Russia will face the same exact problems but to a much greater degree because inherently its units are less capable of handling the stress successfully.

An old saying in the US military, when things go badly, is "I didn't sign up for this crap".  In the Russian military about half of the soldiers in the field would say "I didn't even sign up".  Anybody that thinks this doesn't have an affect on morale, and therefore combat experience, needs to do a lot more studying of warfare.  Patriotism can help counter act this, but generally only when on the defensive of ones' own soil or (at best) for a limited amount of time.  Anybody that disagrees with me here can kinda excuse themselves from this discussion and go read a couple dozen books before coming back

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

When soldiers find themselves in a situation they are not prepared to deal with, they tend to do one of three things:

1.  Panic (and there's all kinds of fun that comes from that)

2.  Fall back (attempt to maneuver to safer conditions)

3.  Fight in place (concede initiative in order to survive)

Oh!  I forgot the 4th possibility, which is the obvious one:

4.  React based on training

The point of this list is that when things go wrong for a unit it quickly falls into one of the four categories.  The better units will gravitate towards #4, but often they only have seconds or perhaps minutes to figure out what exactly they are going to do.  The more prepared a unit is for such a situation, the more likely it will go this route to start with then, if it does, the more likely it will come up with an adequate course of action (including the ability to execute it).  This is where training and experience come into play.  The broader the training, the deeper the experience, the better the result.  And yes, length of time in service is important.

Steve

[VladimirTarasov]

7 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Like, here's what I'm getting with the variables thing;

Again, you're describing what is pretty standard battle drill stuff for us.  It's not BAD training, it's just training designed to illicit certain responses, even if it is simply chaining drills together (react to contact>clear building>evaluate and evacuate  a casualty).  If we were making the training event hard/variable-tastic, we might throw in civilians on the battlefield, enemy counter-attack with a superior force, booby traps, or set up a room specifically to defeat whatever room clearing technique was being taught (walls in the wrong places, or worse, OPFOR with paintball guns in all the wrong places).

 I'm trying to argue that our training isn't bad, however I know the US on average has more advanced training in some areas. I'm trying to argue, that we'd still be able to perform as our higher tier NATO counterparts, in most areas. In some areas, for example the US soldier on average shoots more, he receives better training in some area, ect.. During my service however, in training for example in the obstacle course we were crawling below barbed wire and once we were crawling in the open field the trainer scared me to death, without warning he sprayed his AK a meter or so next to the ground I was on, and that encouraged me to crawl very fast. This is boring cadet stuff however

7 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Russian/Soviet doctrine has generally followed "war as science."  Not that doctrine cannot be wrong, but it's the assumption that you can find a right answer down to the amount of bullets required to suppress someone

I can't argue against this, in alot of areas this is true. But we still have the capability of thinking on the go, in many cases. For example, say a company gets flanked, the company commander will know to position the platoons, the platoon leader will know to adjust his men and armor towards the threat, and the squad leader will know to arrange his men accordingly. 

7 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Which is not to say you're dumber than I was as a cadet haha (as nothing is dumber than a cadet), simply that the way Russia and the US run wars is different.  You were expected to be the ultimate paratrooper, shoot, move, communicate ah-hah etc etc.  In that regard think of yourself as a hammer.  You hammer things.  You hammer things really well.  As long as the problem can be hammered, you are the man for the job.

You work with armor we must assume you were smarter   Well I'm a hammer versus infantry true, but if a tank were to show up I'm a crunchy.

7 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

The American perspective is we expect our soldiers and junior leader especially to be multi-tools.  We can get away with this because we have the time (as in years and years of someone in uniform), and the budget to train them accordingly.

Well most US troops join the army as a career, and stay in for quite some time. So they can be used as multi tools more so than Russian troops, however that's not to say that we cannot act accordingly for military situations. One thing I'm sure the Russian military is jealous of (other than your advanced thermals) is the big budget you guys are blessed with. 

7 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

So the point I'm getting to is that Russian and US troops are likely both entirely adequate at being hammers.  The difference emerges once you take Russian forces out of roles where the hammer is correct, or where something is better than being a hammer, they tend to suffer.  

Could you give an example for a non hammer situation?

7 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Re: Paratroopers

There's nothing implicitly wrong with paratroopers, simply that it's a really hard case to make that there's still a role for the large scale massed drops against conventional forces.  If you're into paratrooper history, look up Operation Market-Garden and Operation Varsity for some good history on some of the problems that face massed drops that came into play circa 1944-45....that still really haven't been sorted out that well. 

I think there is a misunderstanding, I very much understand that no one is going to drop a battalion of paratroops with AA threats present. The VDV if needed to do so, can be deployed as regular mech infantry. And I'll take a look into operation market garden and varsity. 

Edited September 2, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[VladimirTarasov]

6 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

When soldiers find themselves in a situation they are not prepared to deal with, they tend to do one of three things:

1.  Panic (and there's all kinds of fun that comes from that)

2.  Fall back (attempt to maneuver to safer conditions)

3.  Fight in place (concede initiative in order to survive)

This is quite true for units with bad leaders. It is apparent in many cases of war. Motivation plays a huge roll to this as well. 

6 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

What they do not do, at least initially, is come up with a creative plan to address whatever the unexpected situation is.  Which is why NATO has a standard drill (i.e. rote behavior) to push through an ambush with maximum firepower.  Thinking is a luxury when the world turns upside down for a soldier. This is as true for the top end of US forces as much as it is the low end of Russian forces.

Ambushes depending on the scenario, can end very bloody. In Afghanistan some Taliban member on the mountain could blow up an IED and kill a vehicle (COIN environment) Or in high intensity wars like in Donbas, the ambush starts off with ATGM missile, or RPG, followed by heavy fire from multiple points, God forbid getting ambushed by a tank unit. 

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

To expect a Russian VDV unit with 25% conscripts and 2-3 years average time in boots for the rest to perform to the same standards as a US airborne unit is silly.  And I do mean silly.  The VDV unit *might* respond to unexpected circumstances just as quickly (which is what Vladimir is arguing), but odds are that it's solution to the problem will be inferior.  Inferior plans in combat tend to get people killed.  Sometimes a lot of them.

Well Steve, US troops on average do have better experience, the army is basically his job/career. But experience in terms of serving wont do much other than guarantee the soldier will know what to do for sure. If the said soldier, has seen combat tours, and been in combat even once, he will have the needed experience that you are talking about. He will understand how a shoot out is, and the thing his units must do to overcome it. But if corporal Steve has been serving 3 years so far and hasn't seen action, his advantage over private Dmitrii who is about to finish his term is he's got more rounds down range, he is definitely trained longer than private Dmitrii, but depending on the situation private Dmitrii if led effectively by his SL, he will be able to compete with corporal Steve. But of course, private Dmitrii wont be able to lead his squad as effectively if a freak accident happens, and he has to take charge. Where as Corporal Steve will probably be able too. Well this is just to put it simple.

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

In a matchup between NATO and Russia there would be a lot of unpleasant stuff for NATO forces to experience.  Many of their units will not handle the stress well and will, at a minimum, fall back or lose initiative.  It will be a nasty surprise to many, for sure.  However, Russia will face the same exact problems but to a much greater degree because inherently its units are less capable of handling the stress successfully.

Don't you agree that motivation would matter more in terms of handling stress? I'm not sure US troops would like to die for the sake of Ukraine, where as a Russian soldier would die fighting over Ukraine (well assuming it's a scenario in Ukraine) In this case, I'm sure conscripts would be able to handle stress. In Chechnya, conscripts on their own were fighting brave in the first Chechen war in many cases, even under bad leadership they still put up fights. Well now leadership is better, so it could be assumed if led effectively they can be effective don't you agree? There are alot of cases in Russian history where concsripts have been effective but there are also cases where they haven't been effective. But that's due to many other factors. (motivation, bad leadership, ill-prepared, ect. ect) 

But of course, on their own conscripts are not going to be used as effectively as the volunteer army the US has. Don't think that I'm glorifying conscription  in a nutshell, I'm just saying if the commander gets it right, and the troops are used effectively, Conscripts are still viable soldiers.  

[John Kettler]

Since fighting at the Donetsk Airport keeps coming up in terms of assessing the military capabilities, prowess and resolve of the contending forces, I thought I'd share this account of a ferocious associated military action which started out as combined arms attack spearheaded by T-64s and became a point blank clash. Hollywood directors could but drool over how this all went down, but it was real, however improbable, with aftermath images and other events supporting what is said. In a larger sense, this is the quintessential story of men at war; of the unlikeliest of soldiers rising to levels of courage and combat performance they had no idea they had within themselves. In a way, too, I see it as a microcosm of the grit and determination of the UA in particular and the Ukrainian people in general.

http://en.censor.net.ua/resonance/369772/jan_18_2015_lieutenant_ivan_zhdan_and_sergeantmajor_anatolii_skrytskyi_destroyed_four_tanks_and_putylivskyi

Regards,

John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

re: Training

Here's something to ask though.  What did your instructor firing into the ground do that telling you to get your ****ing head to the dirt wouldn't have done?

This is something fascinating to me, like there's a lot of value in realistic training, but that isn't really realistic as much as it is...like it's dangerous but objectively it is silly.  I suppose it gets you some familiarity with what bullets sound like incoming, but incoming isn't exactly something you miss the first time.

I keep pointing out the Russian army's problem is not bad soldiers, it's a lack of leaders, or at the least, a qualitative gap in junior leaders.  

re: Thinking on the go

This is really where people get the Russian army wrong.  You guys are not robots, but you centralize control and decision making to a degree that slows down your decision making loops.  The simplest way to describe it has already been said, the kind of decisions and independence you expect from a Russian platoon is exercised at a squad level in the US Army and so forth all the way up. Basically if we're going back to OODA loops, the lower echelon leadership of a US formation allows it to complete these cycles faster, and generally with less higher control which in turn allows that higher echelon to focus farther into the future, which becomes the key advantage.

re: "Career"

You'd be surprised how many folks are in for the first four years then out.  There's a fair amount of benefits that come with military service, or for a lot of folks it's just a way to get a start in life.  What's funny is as you stay in longer, your "community" gets smaller until you tend to keep running in to the same people over and over again (I was a company commander alongside one of my former fellow platoon leaders, and my troop's old fire support officer, and my old boss was a battalion commander in Korea at the same time).

re: Not a Hammer

The most obvious would be COIN.  You guys don't do that so well.  Like you shoot people well enough, which is important, but try "The Battle of Algiers" for a good understanding of the shoot-not shoot parts of COIN.  As far as in a conventional fight, a lot of it isn't exactly a "situation" nearly as much as what happens when you're two or three OODA loops behind someone else, basically you're trying to interact with what the enemy was doing several minutes ago, while he's already exploiting your being oriented in the wrong way.

The hammer is good as long as the nail cooperates if you get my drift.

re: VDV

But then that begs the question, why do large scale assault drops as training exercises if there is no large scale assault drop mission?  The US Airborne has paradrop missions such as they are, oriented against people who don't pose a major ADA threat, or alternately, do the airdrop as a way to rapidly flow into a region to assist friendly forces where disembarking onto an airfield is too slow or not practical.  The VDV doesn't have that more realistic mission, and again what it trains for is something that frankly is borderline absurd.  

Just as spoilers:

Market-Garden was a UK-US paradrop effort to secure a route across the Rhine into Germany in the fall of 1944.  A joint US-UK parachute element (the US 82nd and 101st Divisions, UK's 1st Airborne Division plus the Polish Airborne Brigade) would secure several bridges, while a UK armor corps attacked up the main road.  In a nutshell even the fairly mauled German forces proved to be difficult for the paratroopers to subdue quickly which lead to major delays, the axis of advance was by far too narrow, and the whole attack sputtered out short of the last bridge.  

Varsity was another Rhine crossing done in the spring of 1945.  While US armor had breached the Rhine elsewhere, Varsity was a large airborne operation intended to secure a farside lodgement for troops crossing the Rhine via amphibious vehicles and assault boats.   it was highly successful, however at a very high cost relative to German forces in the area largely because of the profound vulnerability of airplanes conducting paradrop operations.  

[VladimirTarasov]

Training:

He shot to make us use to working under intensive situations. Our training is very brutal, especially the running. Training is probably harder than actually going to war  

Thinking on the go:

well it is true that our decision making is usually left to the upper ranks, and is centralized on that. But that's just our doctrine, it might be less flexible in the awareness factor. The advantage the US has in having decisions being more loosely made is as you've said, they are more flexible tactically.

Not a hammer:

Well COIN was an issue up to the 2000s, we learned lessons based on the Chechen wars. I can see where you have the basis to criticize our COIN ops. 1994-1996 had embarrasing results.

VDV:

Let me give you a plausible scenario or two where it is very useful. First scenario, following operations in Estonia, Russian VDV units are deployed on massive scale into either Russian territory next to Estonian borders (it's an example), or inside territory. Another one would be a VDV unit paradropped in large scale into east Ukraine following a successful ground offensive in (put area/city/ect) in grounds where it is deemed closest to the objective. Keep in mind the VDV can march pretty far on its own after a drop. You can drop them in friendly lines and they can operate from there, these units are highly mobile, and offer flexibility. 

 

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

re: Training

Brutality in training is rarely the hallmark of good training.  When combined with good training, tough or grueling training can indeed be useful, I'm not making the argument that it should all be fluffy sunshine and puppies.  But again, ask yourself, what did someone firing bullets into the ground accomplish?   Did it add more risk to the exercise?  Unless the instructor was a moron, no.  Did it make the exercise harder?  No, the conditions you faced were likely just as terrible.  Was it any more effective than the US manner in which Drill Sergeant Staff Sergeant Spearman gets real low and whispers in your ear that if you're still on this spot in 10 seconds, he's going to unzip your neck and have sexual congress with your windpipe, before counting down from 10 in that freakish booming voice of command only DSes seem to master?   Likely not.  

When training, and pairing in brutality it needs to have a purpose or a function, especially one proportional to the "cost" of the action.  When I was a Company Commander I did 22 hours straight of attack-defend drills with my Company.*  I took away all phones, made the Koreans who followed our field exercises leave, ruthlessly enforced noise and light discipline, demanded all those sketches and hand drawn overlays for maps that no one ever has to do once they've left school, and variously added in things just to make it harder (lots of chemical weapons attacks).  I also started it within an hour or so after the last night's training,

The purpose however was to inject a better sense of what an armor company on the move does.  It's a constant drum beat of operation, and no one, especially this guy got any sleep.  It made people get creative, figure out solutions, prioritize solutions, and get their heads torn off when they made stupid choices.

But again, it was with a Purpose as I already stated.  And that purpose couldn't be easily accomplished with other means, it wasn't brutality for brutality's sake, or adding a little spook factor into it, it was trying to replicate as best we could what sort of suck fest being on the march would result in.

 

re: Doctrine

And I would contend in the sort of agile, hyper lethal environment, centralized control is obsolete.  If you're always 1+ choices behind your foe, he will have the initiative, and he will win all other factors being even.  Also it's not like you are the only guys capable of jamming communications.  I was reasonably comfortable with nearly all my platoon leaders**, that if I told them to do a thing I could walk away and let them do it, and also adapt to mission changes fairly well.  Same deal with when I was a scout platoon leader and my scout sections. 

Re: COIN

Your response indicates you still don't "get it."  Russia's loss in the 1990's was a conventional military defeat against an asymmetrical threat.  They met you in battle, and you lost.  When you came back, you met them in battle, and like all good insurgents, they went to ground after you started flattening villages.

Looking at the fact you all are still doing raids, still finding caches, still having random attacks, and we're still finding chechens inside major islamic terrorist networks, I think you guys are riding a tiger vs having tamed it.  There's more to COIN than shooting terrorists.  As sburke actually reminded me, try reading "A Savage War of Peace" for the lessons about Algiers I was trying to pass onto you when I got a movie and book on the same subject matter all cross-wise.

Re: Paradrop

That's....suboptimal really.  Like in that role you'd have been better off just bringing conventional mechanized forces forward, and in both of those roles you wouldn't even really have to train the drop portion extensively as it's troops basically falling out of the plane and collecting on the LZ.  It doesn't really answer the mail in why you need a massive dog and pony show, or justify having a large airborne vs airmobile contingent.  

*So like the first platoon would attack, half of second platoon would defend against first platoon while the other half established defenses elsewhere, while third platoon did all the reset, maintenance, and mission prep for when it would attack after first platoon had assumed second platoon's defensive mission.  this took something like 50 minutes to an hour and ten to go total reset.

**One of them was a total idiot though.  His survival in the job was largely due to my benevolence and believing in giving someone a chance, and his already being there when I took command, so by the time I well and truly established he was terrible, he was a few weeks out from being replaced anyway.  

[VladimirTarasov]

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Brutality in training is rarely the hallmark of good training.  When combined with good training, tough or grueling training can indeed be useful, I'm not making the argument that it should all be fluffy sunshine and puppies.  But again, ask yourself, what did someone firing bullets into the ground accomplish?   Did it add more risk to the exercise?  Unless the instructor was a moron, no.  Did it make the exercise harder?  No, the conditions you faced were likely just as terrible.  Was it any more effective than the US manner in which Drill Sergeant Staff Sergeant Spearman gets real low and whispers in your ear that if you're still on this spot in 10 seconds, he's going to unzip your neck and have sexual congress with your windpipe, before counting down from 10 in that freakish booming voice of command only DSes seem to master?   Likely not.

Well our training was good, I don't get why you think our training is inadequate. I'm not familiar with the training Company commanders and platoon commanders receive, but I led a squad at my peak. But being infantry, we were trained for our roles, and that's war. If you ordered my platoon to defend an objective, I'd know where to position my men, tell them to survey at, and communicate with. We'd be ready to engage the enemy, trigger discipline, radio discipline ect.

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

When training, and pairing in brutality it needs to have a purpose or a function, especially one proportional to the "cost" of the action.  When I was a Company Commander I did 22 hours straight of attack-defend drills with my Company.*  I took away all phones, made the Koreans who followed our field exercises leave, ruthlessly enforced noise and light discipline, demanded all those sketches and hand drawn overlays for maps that no one ever has to do once they've left school, and variously added in things just to make it harder (lots of chemical weapons attacks).  I also started it within an hour or so after the last night's training,

We've done similar drills, in my unit. But you guys probably did other stuff, being an armor unit. Is there any interesting events that happened during such an exercise? 

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

And I would contend in the sort of agile, hyper lethal environment, centralized control is obsolete.  If you're always 1+ choices behind your foe, he will have the initiative, and he will win all other factors being even.  Also it's not like you are the only guys capable of jamming communications.  I was reasonably comfortable with nearly all my platoon leaders**, that if I told them to do a thing I could walk away and let them do it, and also adapt to mission changes fairly well.  Same deal with when I was a scout platoon leader and my scout sections. 

Well we need to go into detail here, a company commander can make decisions for himself, if he needs to flank an enemy he doesn't need to ask the brigade commander. If the platoon leader needs to change positions after the recon unit sees a heavy attack forming, he can do so without asking the battalion commander. He can make decisions for himself, as long as he obviously communicates with his higher ups. In regards to jamming, our field is obviously advanced in jamming and we can do all sorts of limitations on enemy formations with it. Be it heavy EW or light EW. For example in counter battery tasks, jammers are set to work to deny the enemy the ability to counter-battery, and UAVs overhead work together with any artillery unit assigned to the task to deal with the enemy. So in essence, we can deny the enemy the ability to counter-battery, as long as our EW is up, and we can work on them while they are denied their role. There are many other things EW has that gives us advantages, however of course, no one is saying EW is God, other than say EW stronk fan boys. 

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Your response indicates you still don't "get it."  Russia's loss in the 1990's was a conventional military defeat against an asymmetrical threat.  They met you in battle, and you lost.  When you came back, you met them in battle, and like all good insurgents, they went to ground after you started flattening villages.

Looking at the fact you all are still doing raids, still finding caches, still having random attacks, and we're still finding chechens inside major islamic terrorist networks, I think you guys are riding a tiger vs having tamed it.  There's more to COIN than shooting terrorists.  As sburke actually reminded me, try reading "A Savage War of Peace" for the lessons about Algiers I was trying to pass onto you when I got a movie and book on the same subject matter all cross-wise.

You're talking about totally eradicating terrorism? I don't think that is possible unless we set up a total police state in the region where the issues are happening. And as you can see, our intelligence picks these groups up fairly quickly before attacks can take place, and the units are taken out. In the counter-terrorism role, we have special units that take care of it. In the second Chechen war, fighting an asymmetrical enemy was done by the army, it was successful in the end and many experiences were picked up from it. We even have Chechens in rebel groups in Syria we are bombing. But that really isn't our fault to say, there are even Canadians in ISIS. 

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

That's....suboptimal really.  Like in that role you'd have been better off just bringing conventional mechanized forces forward, and in both of those roles you wouldn't even really have to train the drop portion extensively as it's troops basically falling out of the plane and collecting on the LZ.  It doesn't really answer the mail in why you need a massive dog and pony show, or justify having a large airborne vs airmobile contingent.  

 

As I've said, if the mission does not require a paradrop, we can be moved into the area as mechanized forces would. And we are trained to fight as mechanized forces as well, we aren't light infantry, we do have armor. 

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

*So like the first platoon would attack, half of second platoon would defend against first platoon while the other half established defenses elsewhere, while third platoon did all the reset, maintenance, and mission prep for when it would attack after first platoon had assumed second platoon's defensive mission.  this took something like 50 minutes to an hour and ten to go total reset.

Sounds cool, second platoon must have been overwhelmed. 

[Battlefront.com]

On 9/2/2016 at 6:56 PM, VladimirTarasov said:

This is quite true for units with bad leaders. It is apparent in many cases of war. Motivation plays a huge roll to this as well. 

Good motivation gives leadership a chance to be effective, it can cause the enemy casualties where it doesn't expect them, and it can help a flawed attack work if the enemy isn't as well motivated.  However, good motivation without good leadership or good circumstances can result in larger numbers of casualties.

The early Waffen SS units fighting in Poland, France, and Yugoslavia were exceptionally motivated.  Perhaps higher motivation than any standard Heer combat unit.  However, their junior officers and NCOs were not very well trained even though they did have combat experience.  The results were very good combat results in some cases, but at a very high cost of men.

Similarly, the Soviets regularly throughout the war had units that were very well motivated (sometimes with the "help" of the NKVD).  They caused the Germans huge numbers of casualties, both as defender and as attacker.  But these units tended to fight to annihilation in order to achieve the results.  Even with the large numbers of replacements the losses were too high.  If the Germans had fought more competently the Soviet Union would have run out of men instead of defeating the Third Reich.

There is also another problem with motivation... if it is based on lies and empty promises, it can quickly disappear.  The German soldiers fighting in the Soviet Union were told that the Russians were terrible fighters and that the German war machine was superior in all respects.  This was not true and it negatively affected German morale.  As the war went on the morale of the average German soldier dropped as the realities of the war become more apparent.

My point here is that motivation is important.  Definitely.  But motivation can only do so much when faced with an opponent that has distinct advantages.  Motivation can also quickly disappear if the soldiers perceive they are being lied to or not fully supported.  Which is why I do not think it is a good idea to rely upon motivation to win wars.

Quote

Well Steve, US troops on average do have better experience, the army is basically his job/career. But experience in terms of serving wont do much other than guarantee the soldier will know what to do for sure. If the said soldier, has seen combat tours, and been in combat even once, he will have the needed experience that you are talking about. He will understand how a shoot out is, and the thing his units must do to overcome it. But if corporal Steve has been serving 3 years so far and hasn't seen action, his advantage over private Dmitrii who is about to finish his term is he's got more rounds down range, he is definitely trained longer than private Dmitrii, but depending on the situation private Dmitrii if led effectively by his SL, he will be able to compete with corporal Steve. But of course, private Dmitrii wont be able to lead his squad as effectively if a freak accident happens, and he has to take charge. Where as Corporal Steve will probably be able too. Well this is just to put it simple.

This is the part you don't seem to appreciate.  In a NATO force if the sergeant leading the squad is wounded and can not continue, the corporal can take over within seconds and theoretically lead with just as much experience and knowledge as the wounded sergeant.  The private-first-class is also likely to have the knowledge and training to take over the duties of the corporal, which means that (in theory) the squad's only penalty is being short one weapon.  In other respects the squad functions the same as it did before.

This concept works throughout the entire NATO chain of command.  For example, if the platoon leader is out of communications or wounded the senior NCO of the platoon is technically capable of leading the platoon, either temporarily or for the rest of the battle.  As with the squad example, the platoon would (theoretically) be just as combat effective/capable with the most senior Sergeant in command as it would with the 1st LT in command please, no 1LT jokes )

Additionally, the NATO system is designed for flexibility.  If conditions allow the commanding element has extra leaders available it can push downward to take over command of lower echelons.  For example, if 1LT Smith is hit by a grenade then SGT Lopez takes over and CPL Yang replaces him as Squad Leader, with PFC Dulac taking over as Team Leader (CPL Yang's previous position).  The platoon fights on pretty much as it did before 1LT Smith got taken out of action.  15 minutes into the battle 1SGT Kowalski shows up from the company command element in order to take over, thus freeing SGT Lopez to resume command of his squad, CPL Yang to resume being Team Leader, and PFC Dulac back to the comfortable position of SAW operator.

This is *ONLY* possible because NATO has designed everything to maintain effective command and control at all times under all circumstances.  That means doctrine, training, and retained experience.

Quote

Don't you agree that motivation would matter more in terms of handling stress? I'm not sure US troops would like to die for the sake of Ukraine, where as a Russian soldier would die fighting over Ukraine (well assuming it's a scenario in Ukraine) In this case, I'm sure conscripts would be able to handle stress.

There were many that doubted that US soldiers would be willing to fight and die to defeat Nazi Germany.  They were very wrong.

Even with all the horrible mistakes made in Afghanistan and Iraq the US forces have (generally) maintained high motivation and professionalism despite year after year without a clear victory.

In the case of the Ukraine scenario, it is becoming clearer and clearer that Russia is intent on doing the US harm.  It also very clearly sees Russia causing harm to Ukraine, which wants to be a US ally against Russia.  Therefore, if the US were to be involved in Ukraine it would be doing so with very high motivation.  Russia would also have high motivation to start with.  What happens after that is more of a debate.

 

Quote

In Chechnya, conscripts on their own were fighting brave in the first Chechen war in many cases, even under bad leadership they still put up fights. Well now leadership is better, so it could be assumed if led effectively they can be effective don't you agree?

Sure I agree.  The US forces fighting in Vietnam were largely conscript and they fought very hard many, many times.  Conscripts in all WW2 nations were also capable of fighting very hard.  But that doesn't mean that a conscript force can fight as well as a well trained volunteer force.  The two are not equals.

Quote

But of course, on their own conscripts are not going to be used as effectively as the volunteer army the US has. Don't think that I'm glorifying conscription  in a nutshell, I'm just saying if the commander gets it right, and the troops are used effectively, Conscripts are still viable soldiers.  

I do not disagree.  However, wars are a series of battles and battles are a series of individual engagements.  All else being equal, the force that wins more individual engagements and battles will win the war.  If you had to place money on who would win more engagements and battles, which would you choose... a partial conscript force with less flexible doctrine and less experience *or* a volunteer force with more flexible doctrine and more experience?

The law of averages is important in warfare.  If the average NATO unit wins the average engagement and average battle, then it is likely going to win the war if all other factors are equal.  Which, as we have discussed, factors are not equal.  Almost everything is favorable to NATO tactically, operationally, and even strategically.  A force that is likely to win tactical engagements AND is backed by better non-combat factors is definitely the one that should win a war.

Steve

[Sublime]

One wonders what a russian defeat would.mean. i mean i could easily envision nuclear escalation to forestall loss because loss would mean a coup is very likely and Putins dead if deposed. Since hes doomed ifdefeated why wouldnt he introduce nukes if Russian forces were handily defeated? Its a scary thought honestly. Doomed in loss extreme danger in victory.

[Battlefront.com]

Any unstable nation with nuclear weapons is a concern, obviously.  However, I view the Russians as practical people.  A nuclear war would mean Russia would (at best) be forever an enemy state with everybody in the world pretty much against them.  It is highly unlikely that Putin's regime would survive long after conducting a nuclear strike.  A strike, which, would be Russia's sole responsibility.  No matter how hard the Kremlin propaganda would try to spin it as being someone else's fault, I don't think many in Russia would buy it.  Even if they did, they certainly wouldn't be happy with the results even under the best case scenario.

Worst case, of course, is that there is a nuclear counter strike.  At which point the recriminations against the Russian government go up, Putin's regime is out of power, and the Russian state ceases to exist.  This is not to say that there wouldn't be massive impacts/changes elsewhere if there was a large scale nuclear exchange (there definitely would be), it's to say that Russia for sure would not survive it. 

Either way, if the motivation is to use nukes for regime survival, it has no chance in Hell of working.  Even if Putin was idiotic enough to think he could pull it off, I'm not sure enough of his power structure would.  That in turn would trigger a coup which might very well depose Putin.

I don't see any easy way for Putin to get out alive if NATO crushed the Russian Armed Forces inside of Ukraine.  Either there would be a coup sometime before the full defeat happened, in which case Putin would be lucky to get out of Russia alive, or he would be deposed after.

My belief is that Putin is aware that a war with NATO is suicidal for him and for the Russian Federation.  Therefore, he's likely to push and push and push and push, but stop short of deliberately putting Russia into a conventional war confrontation with NATO (or even the US).

Steve

 

[Sublime]

Considering you me and many others agree Putins basically dead once hes outta office means that even if hes not an idiot that push push push push could easily lead to a war that was unintended. Shoot we dont even need the "evil russians" to start it. I could easily see some nato nations deciding well if we dont drag nato into a war with russia now russia will get stronger and occupy us again ( baltic states maybe poland ) or like turkey have friction issues near a combat zone except maybe next time its a dogfight and then turkish grnd forces fight russian csar people tryn to get downed pilots 2km in turkey. Theres a lot of ways this could explode badly.

In fact its ironic even very young I was well aware in the early 90s that the constant shadow of nuclear doom had passed my life I thought.  Annd even younger i wasnt aware of it but the nuclear phantom lurked over my life constantly because i lived either near rammstein AFB or near wiesbaden in bad weilbach from 1985 to 1991. If world war 3 happened and a spetnaz nuke didnt kill me, or a tac nuke didnt, we certainly all would have been dead very soon anyways. My dad when he still flew F4Ds as a WSO.s WW3 mission was to tactically nuke RA staging areas ( think troop concentrations) by flying nap of earth in bombng thats it. The pilots universally considered it a suicide mission.  They figured even if they made it theyd be killed by friendly air defense. And they doubted theyd make it anyways. Scary stuff. His eyes failed him due to glaucoma in 85 and he went into intel. Some.other scary things i was told in the late 90s when it wasnt relevant or treasonous to tell me - we were going nuclear immediately. Tactical nukes would be used the moment the red army moved in the FDR. Also - i dont know how my father knew so it quite possibly was a well known rumor or thing amongst flight crews but hes always been adamant that esp in 79-81 NATO really only had enough A2A missiles in theater for 3 days of intense combat. Thats very worrying too. 

Now 2016 it seems we may be closer than ever. I really think Russia may be a more or less rational actor and China too. N Korea? I really expect them to lob nukes at us eventually. We.ll utterly destroy them but it wont be any fun at all.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Sublime

[Battlefront.com]

I don't want to get sucked into a discussion about nukes.  It never goes anywhere productive.  Having grown up next to a major CONUS Airforce base in the 1970s and 1980s I am all too aware of what the threat of nuclear war is like.

You misunderstood one important point I made.  I didn't say Putin's got no chance of living out the rest of his natural life in style no matter what.  What I said is that if he starts a ground war with NATO his chances of doing so are very small.  If he avoids that and keeps a lid on the growing internal unrest then yes I think he can live out his life very comfortably.  $90-$200 Billion (Putin's estimated net worth) buys a lot of protection   Therefore, he has a personal interest in not bringing about the destruction of his safe haven short or long term.  A war with NATO would almost certainly do that and I think he is very well aware of that possibility.  Therefore, he'll push things right to the brink.

No NATO country will proactively start a war with Russia.  A Turkish type episode or one of Russia's frequent airspace violations (another one just happened in Estonia) won't likely be enough to trigger a full war because neither side wants it to happen.

Steve

[VladimirTarasov]

22 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Good motivation gives leadership a chance to be effective, it can cause the enemy casualties where it doesn't expect them, and it can help a flawed attack work if the enemy isn't as well motivated.  However, good motivation without good leadership or good circumstances can result in larger numbers of casualties.

The early Waffen SS units fighting in Poland, France, and Yugoslavia were exceptionally motivated.  Perhaps higher motivation than any standard Heer combat unit.  However, their junior officers and NCOs were not very well trained even though they did have combat experience.  The results were very good combat results in some cases, but at a very high cost of men.

True, you can't just have good motivation and horrible leadership. 

22 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is the part you don't seem to appreciate.  In a NATO force if the sergeant leading the squad is wounded and can not continue, the corporal can take over within seconds and theoretically lead with just as much experience and knowledge as the wounded sergeant.  The private-first-class is also likely to have the knowledge and training to take over the duties of the corporal, which means that (in theory) the squad's only penalty is being short one weapon.  In other respects the squad functions the same as it did before.

I never said I don't appreciate it. And if the squad's morale does not drop after a loss of a squad leader I'd say they can still function almost as good as if the sergeant was leading.

22 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

There were many that doubted that US soldiers would be willing to fight and die to defeat Nazi Germany.  They were very wrong.

Even with all the horrible mistakes made in Afghanistan and Iraq the US forces have (generally) maintained high motivation and professionalism despite year after year without a clear victory.

I don't think many doubted US soldiers in world war 2, as they did in essence help the allies in world war 1 against the Germans. US troops did enjoy successes against the German army, without disrespect of course, there are many factors that also eased it for the US, in world war 2 against the Germans. But in terms of Ukraine, you can't motivate US forces against Russia in Ukraine, the same way you can motivate troops against Fascists killing millions in Europe. Anyways, I don't doubt US troops could engage in Ukraine against Russia, but if high casualties and stiff resistance is met, I don't think US troops would be as determined as Russian troops. 

22 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sure I agree.  The US forces fighting in Vietnam were largely conscript and they fought very hard many, many times.  Conscripts in all WW2 nations were also capable of fighting very hard.  But that doesn't mean that a conscript force can fight as well as a well trained volunteer force.  The two are not equals.

I agree, they lack the training/experience to be effective in offensive operations, if there is a conscription majority, and the leadership is poor.

22 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I do not disagree.  However, wars are a series of battles and battles are a series of individual engagements.  All else being equal, the force that wins more individual engagements and battles will win the war.  If you had to place money on who would win more engagements and battles, which would you choose... a partial conscript force with less flexible doctrine and less experience *or* a volunteer force with more flexible doctrine and more experience?

I'd bet my money on the volunteer force of course if we were talking about a blunt comparison. However, Russia and the US slugging it out in Ukraine has many other factors that could tip the advantage towards Russia's side. First being that Russia will operate near our borders, infact very near. All our important assets like cruise missiles, long range AA, EW systems will be under a chain of security. Reserves can be deployed in the country to fill up gaps in our border defenses while we can use our active troops for other roles. We can deploy a larger force, and launch operations quicker than the US can (not capability wise, but look at the units in Europe and the time it would take to ship in enough troops to be a viable force) as you've said when I was new in the forum, the quicker Russia does operations in such a conflict the better chance it has at winning. And I agree with you on this. Also there are many other variables at play, which NATO countries will want to fight Russia? Will those countries' populace agree with it. 

As for our doctrine, if you've been following up on our modernization program, there are many changes in our doctrine. I am not familiar enough with it to be able to tell you enough to be able to compare to US doctrine, but we can assume it has improved just like everything else in the Russian Armed Forces. Of course don't get me wrong, I know the US has a flexible doctrine, and has exceptional command and control.  

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Wheeeeee,

Re: Nukes

From a former political science student perspective, stop viewing them as weapons, and start viewing them as foundations of international policy.  They establish a scary tripwire no one really wants to cross.  The DPRK doesn't want nukes so it can put LA in the ocean, they want nukes because it ensures they can do pretty much everything short of a full fledged war with someone and not get invaded for it.  The cost of actually employing a nuclear weapon is so high that it really would have to be something like we're going to enslave all Russians, eat their babies in front of them, and then take their land and give it to the Kenyans out of especially random spite before it really becomes use or lose.

Putin likely has an exit plan to "retire" and leave the flaming mess he may make behind, but nukes are not likely part of it.

Re: Training.  Again.

Look.  Your idea of tough training is someone shooting bullets at a safe distance from you.  My idea of training is putting a unit somewhere, against a real thinking "enemy" role playing an enemy force that is given capabilities well in excess of what anyone has,* on their home turf where all they do year round is beat the best trained military forces in the world.

You go to NTC or JRTC (the major training centers) you will lose 75-80% of the time.  Your administrative officer will file paperwork in full chemical weapons gear in 38 degrees C weather because GAS GAS GAS....but the paperwork must flow.  You will face an enemy who cheats, and is encouraged to cheat, you will face insurgent ambushes on the Company level against your platoon, and then you will be instructed to place your assembly area in literally the stupidest place to set up on the planet because CONGRATS YOU WILL DEFEND YOUR PLATOON AA FROM A BATTALION TACTICAL GROUP.

And you will have to find a solution.  Your little doctrine book means very little because your enemy has read the same book, and is using it as a planning aid to beat you. You Mr Squad Leader Man will have to attack and clear a complex of buildings specially designed to make you lose if you use the book answer**.  You will have some angry, sunburned, wreck of a man, likely brought back from the depths of hell, given a rank from a hat, and told to take out his anger at his failed marriage and numerous STDs on you deciding who died. 

And he will pick the smartest, strongest leaders.  Failing that he'll pick the biggest, tallest guys you've got, and he'll make the only available LZ for pickup 700 meters dismounted across sweltering desert.  Because he hates you.  He hates everyone and everything.  

I'm sure those bullets were scary.  But what did it do besides make it stressful to go in the preordained right direction?    

Re: insurgents

Here's the deal.  You prevent the insurgents from just out and out taking over.  Then you have to work to diffuse the thing that was generating insurgents.  You can keep a lid on things for some time assuming national will and resources, but unless you deal with the grievances of the population, you are likely just ensuring that once you cannot keep the lid on, it will boil up, and over again.  The few successful counter-insurgencies all ended with the insurgent alienated from the population, and some sort of conciliatory settlement of what was being fought over.  

You guys have given Chechnya thug president, leading a thug government, and chechens keep disappearing into places.  So long as you hold on tight, you may yet keep it, but if you slacken that grip, I think it will end poorly for you.  Which is not so much winning, as much as what is usually defined as a "dilemma."

Re: Paratroopers

So again, why do large scale drops at all?  You've agreed the large scale assault drops are suicide, and the best you can come up with is rapid deployment on internal lines...but then why have a mechanized unit with terrible IFVs (as the BMD is a good airborne vehicle, but not at all a good fighting one), and only the armor it can fly onto a runway?  The way you're describing it is frankly if you cut the whole airborne element out, and just became an elite mechanized infantry force, using the same vehicles as the rest of the army, you'd have a more useful force for a whole lot cheaper.

Our Airborne hangs on because we've got global commitments, and it has mostly commonality with our other light infantry units.  But the massive circus of an airborne mechanized unit that cannot airdrop except for over friendly lines, and is much weaker than other mechanized units when on the ground is perplexing.     

*We don't use "Russia" as the bad guy not because of politics, but because we grant equipment and capabilities well in excess of what Russia actually could manage.  

**I am not making this up.  There was a building with a staircase especially placed to defeat standard room clearing tactics.  The OPFOR put a machine gun there just to ensure we were all deaf by the time they let fly with 40+ rounds of 7.62 blanks in an enclosed space.  

[VladimirTarasov]

27 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Look.  Your idea of tough training is someone shooting bullets at a safe distance from you.  My idea of training is putting a unit somewhere, against a real thinking "enemy" role playing an enemy force that is given capabilities well in excess of what anyone has,* on their home turf where all they do year round is beat the best trained military forces in the world.

You go to NTC or JRTC (the major training centers) you will lose 75-80% of the time.  Your administrative officer will file paperwork in full chemical weapons gear in 38 degrees C weather because GAS GAS GAS....but the paperwork must flow.  You will face an enemy who cheats, and is encouraged to cheat, you will face insurgent ambushes on the Company level against your platoon, and then you will be instructed to place your assembly area in literally the stupidest place to set up on the planet because CONGRATS YOU WILL DEFEND YOUR PLATOON AA FROM A BATTALION TACTICAL GROUP.

Again, we had drills like this even during the Soviet Union, however up until the 2008 modernization after the collapse of the "mighty" USSR training was poor. Now, we have advanced drills the same way you've tested your men. I mentioned the instructor spraying half his clip randomly a meter or so away from me in reference to being a cadet. We've had advanced drills, especially my unit. We were drilled day and night to be super soldiers, so president Putin can send us onto super scary communist missions, that threats world security. (joking of course) But that's crazy about a platoon defending against a battalion tactical group, I'm sure your men made quick work of the poor BTG.

32 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

And you will have to find a solution.  Your little doctrine book means very little because your enemy has read the same book, and is using it as a planning aid to beat you. You Mr Squad Leader Man will have to attack and clear a complex of buildings specially designed to make you lose if you use the book answer**.  You will have some angry, sunburned, wreck of a man, likely brought back from the depths of hell, given a rank from a hat, and told to take out his anger at his failed marriage and numerous STDs on you deciding who died. 

Exactly why I hate MOUT things.

34 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

And he will pick the smartest, strongest leaders.  Failing that he'll pick the biggest, tallest guys you've got, and he'll make the only available LZ for pickup 700 meters dismounted across sweltering desert.  Because he hates you.  He hates everyone and everything.  

I'm sure those bullets were scary.  But what did it do besides make it stressful to go in the preordained right direction?   

Well I wish he wouldn't hate everyone   well those bullets was to get us use to being shot at I guess, you can't just compare that to advanced drills, Sir. 

36 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

You guys have given Chechnya thug president, leading a thug government, and chechens keep disappearing into places.  So long as you hold on tight, you may yet keep it, but if you slacken that grip, I think it will end poorly for you.  Which is not so much winning, as much as what is usually defined as a "dilemma."

Chechens I've spoken with are quite happy with mr.Kadyrov. Anyways he keeps things in check and so do we, we couldn't have asked for a better guy in office there. Better than the radicals in the 90s if you ask me.

44 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

So again, why do large scale drops at all?  You've agreed the large scale assault drops are suicide, and the best you can come up with is rapid deployment on internal lines...but then why have a mechanized unit with terrible IFVs (as the BMD is a good airborne vehicle, but not at all a good fighting one), and only the armor it can fly onto a runway?  The way you're describing it is frankly if you cut the whole airborne element out, and just became an elite mechanized infantry force, using the same vehicles as the rest of the army, you'd have a more useful force for a whole lot cheaper.

I never said that they are suicide, but no one is going to send a large scale air drops where long range AA possess a large threat. It is very plausible to large scale drop VDV units into regions in eastern Ukraine, where possible, or to reinforce the rear areas, or deploy in regions where the enemy does not have substantial defenses, in order to disrupt their lines. I will agree that the BMD-2 needs to be sent to hell, it's 2016, and BMD-4Ms are coming into service, so that is a huge boost, and best part about it is that they have thermals. So the VDV can still pose a threat to the enemy if used as a paradrop force, but no one is going to send IL-76s over AD, same as no one is going to send C-130s over AD. 

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I never said I don't appreciate it. And if the squad's morale does not drop after a loss of a squad leader I'd say they can still function almost as good as if the sergeant was leading.

A good military system is internally balanced.  The lower skill level of a Soviet/Russian Squad is balanced by lower technology, doctrine, and operational expectations.  If a Russian Squad can perform just as well with a conscript commanding it as a contract soldier, then you have just proven my point.  Because a US Squad could not perform its function if the Squad Leader was killed and a guy with the equivalent of basic training took over.  That is because the US Squad is expected to do far more than what 6-12 months of training can possibly produce.

Quote

I don't think many doubted US soldiers in world war 2, as they did in essence help the allies in world war 1 against the Germans. US troops did enjoy successes against the German army, without disrespect of course, there are many factors that also eased it for the US, in world war 2 against the Germans.

You do not know your history well, so I will help educate you.  The US in the 1930s and 1940s was about 25% German heritage and therefore deep cultural, industrial, and political ties with Germany.  The US was also extremely Isolationist, which meant it did not want to go to war in Europe a second time in 20 years.  Especially after Pearl Harbor when most Americans felt that one war was enough and that Japan, since it attacked, was the war America should fight.  Even the sinking of US merchant and Coast Guard ships by German U-Boats did not change American opinion against going to war with Germany.  But Hitler was a stupid man and he declared war on the United States.  Well, guess what?  Public opinion changed over night.

Still, many did not think that the Americans would fight hard in Europe.   Especially the Germans, who thought of the American soldiers as weak and "soft".  They were very wrong.  The Americans even suffered a humiliating defeat early in North Africa, but all it did was make it fight smarter the next time.  And months later it invaded Italy then months later invaded France.  It fought all the way until it met Soviet forces on the Elbe.

Quote

But in terms of Ukraine, you can't motivate US forces against Russia in Ukraine, the same way you can motivate troops against Fascists killing millions in Europe.

Do not be very sure about that.  If there are conditions which lead to a military conflict the United States Armed Forces will have motivation enough to do their job.  Especially now that Russia is clearly attacking the United States through cyber warfare.  Today more people in the US think Russia is a threat to the United States than on September 10th, 2001 thought Afghanistan was a threat.

Quote

Anyways, I don't doubt US troops could engage in Ukraine against Russia, but if high casualties and stiff resistance is met, I don't think US troops would be as determined as Russian troops. 

The tactical engagements will mostly go in favor of US forces.  The operational engagements will likely favor the United States.  The strategic factors are almost completely favorable to the US.  You should be more worried about Russian troops being able to maintain their motivation more than the US maintaining its will to fight.

Quote

I 'd bet my money on the volunteer force of course if we were talking about a blunt comparison. However, Russia and the US slugging it out in Ukraine has many other factors that could tip the advantage towards Russia's side. First being that Russia will operate near our borders, infact very near. All our important assets like cruise missiles, long range AA, EW systems will be under a chain of security. Reserves can be deployed in the country to fill up gaps in our border defenses while we can use our active troops for other roles. We can deploy a larger force, and launch operations quicker than the US can (not capability wise, but look at the units in Europe and the time it would take to ship in enough troops to be a viable force) as you've said when I was new in the forum, the quicker Russia does operations in such a conflict the better chance it has at winning. And I agree with you on this.

Yes, for sure Russia has some advantages.  However, on balance those advantages are not on the battlefield in a direct way.  The advantages also are "brittle" in that they can be degraded through continued military action.

Obviously if the scenario is a quick Russian attack against a very small NATO or US force then immediately there is a chance of a Russian victory.  Just like Hitler was able to declare victory over half of Europe, it doesn't matter if the second half of the war goes poorly.  It would be a grave mistake to think that the United States would accept a small portion of its forces being attacked and defeated.  Nothing in the United States' history of military conflict indicates this would be the result.  The more likely result, the one that history supports, is that the United States would not stop attacking Russia until it was thoroughly defeated (a defeat could include a political collapse/coup within Russia).

Quote

Also there are many other variables at play, which NATO countries will want to fight Russia? Will those countries' populace agree with it. 

Far more than you think.  Plus, it doesn't matter.  The United States is capable of defeating Russia without help from any NATO country.  The participation of other NATO countries simply means a quicker end to Russia's capacity to fight and with fewer casualties on the US side.

Assuming that Russia doesn't directly attack NATO forces first (Article 5), I would expect some degree of support from almost every NATO country.  How much support depends on the country and the circumstances.

What you have to understand is that the United States has a lot to offer Europe.  If it feels betrayed by a country those opportunities will be reduced.  It is why the United States has strong alliances.  Russia, on the other hand, has very little to offer other countries and that is why it has very little meaningful alliances.  If Russia goes to war against the United States and/or NATO, it will go to war alone.

Quote

As for our doctrine, if you've been following up on our modernization program, there are many changes in our doctrine. I am not familiar enough with it to be able to tell you enough to be able to compare to US doctrine, but we can assume it has improved just like everything else in the Russian Armed Forces. Of course don't get me wrong, I know the US has a flexible doctrine, and has exceptional command and control.  

The issue is that everything in a military has to be balanced or it will fail to perform as designed.  It is why the Soviet Army was defeated by tiny Finland during the Winter War.  On paper the force used was vastly superior in all measurable aspects, but in practice it completely failed.  Why?  Because the doctrine and equipment simply could not be used as intended because the people necessary to make it work were murdered by Stalin in the years before the war.  Doctrine that is out of balance with the ability to perform it is a recipe for disaster.

My point here is that Russia could download all the US manuals that are online, translate them into Russian, substitute descriptions of Russian equipment for American equipment, hand these manuals to its soldiers, and tell them "this is how you will fight", and it would be WORSE than the way things were before 2008.  Why?  Because in the US the doctrine is in balance with the volunteer soldier, the career enlisted, and the career officers.  There is no way Russia can perform the same roles unless it also creates the same type of soldiers.  It is definitely moving in that direction since 2008, but it has a very long way to go still.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Chechens I've spoken with are quite happy with mr.Kadyrov.

You also went to Donetsk and were convinced there were no Russian forces there.  If you had explored more, talked with more people, gone to more places, approached things with more skepticism... you might have come to a different conclusion in both cases.

3 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Anyways he keeps things in check and so do we, we couldn't have asked for a better guy in office there. Better than the radicals in the 90s if you ask me.

Not to get us off on a political track, but Kadyrov is a murderous thug who hold power through corruption and violence.  Of course he has supporters, and apparently you met some of them.  But the average population lives in fear and the insurgency is starting to gain more strength because of it. 

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12148922/vladimir-putin-ramzan-kadyrov-chechnya

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/08/putins-dragon

http://politicalcritique.org/cee/poland/2016/forgotten-refugees-chechen-asylum-seekers-in-poland/

https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/08/30/walking-minefield/vicious-crackdown-critics-russias-chechen-republic

Short term, I agree that Kadyrov is keeping Chechnya a part of Russia.  But you are only seeing things "in the now".  You should be looking ahead.  There is an old saying about "catching a tiger by the tail".  It means a temporary advantage that is quickly (and painfully) reversed once the tiger turns around.   A renewed insurgency is only a matter of time, possibly (once again) led by Kadyrov.

Steve

[Sublime]

The us military still has its "cadets" or    soldiers low crawl under barbed wire with live rnd machine guns firing over their heads 

Regarding Putins exit. True steve and pz. I bet youre right. Putins intlligent and seems rational. However the rational thing for saddam in 03 was take the offer of all the money and asylum for his sons. He didnt. Do I think Putin would be so dumb? No I think he.d just vanish he is ex KGB. though all that moneys a lot and can buy a lot of protection and though theyre apples and oranges pablo escobar was one of the worlds richest money. With all the money in the world he constantly had to run and pay everyone off and still was found and  killed. His compatriot La Gacha had a 35k man private army that took on the colombian police and army. And lost. They still had a lot of firepower but they lost.  Of course these were drug traffickers and its different. But one could argue they had advantages that balances the situation and still proves my.point that sometimes all the money in the world wont save you. John Dillinger (again wildly diff -but for money argument) had to pay everyone outlandish sums to even go outside and buy him food. And he still got sold out.

Putin HAS made a lot of enemies and Russian leaders dont have a good history of leaving power alive. 

 

 

RE DPRK

Even with that maniac in power I dont see him breaking with the status quo.... unless theres another "long ardous march" and so many people are starving it becomes invade the South or coup. And whereas I give Putin a chance  at escaping and surviving Kim Jong Un definitely would get killed and is definitely mentallly unhinged and irrational.

 

 

Hey Steve, Vlad, whats the deal with the head of that Russian biker gang Putin likes to hang out with sometimes? That guy stinks of organized crime and ive only seen him on camera.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Sublime

[Kinophile]

A rebellion led by Kadyrov would be a nightmare for Russia.

I'd imagine he's ruthless enough, popular enough (within a certain segment),  organized enough and motivated enough to attempt uniting a significant portion of the Caucasus if Russia is sufficiently distracted or weakened (either through domestic conflict or endemic infighting amongst the elite).

The prospect of a Kadyrov "Caliphate" (using a more moderate Islam to gloss over his glaring conflicts) is not totally insane.... 

Considering he's had this long to build a loyal,  disciplined, organized and dedicated paramilitary force  I'd guess he's easily the single most potentially dangerous and destabilizing element in Russia right now.  

[Sublime]

8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

  Today more people in the US think Russia is a threat to the United States than on September 10th, 2001 thought Afghanistan was a threat

Youre right of course. But of course on sept 10 2001 most americans didnt know squat about Afghanistan and every Americans at least heard of Russia. But you.rr right in essence.

The Japanese thought we were weak too and also thought their motivation would substitute for deficiencies everywhere else. They were horribly wrong. The US WW2 KIA figures are proof in the pudding. Roughly 2/3rds US KIA were in Europe or ETO.

And yes before anyone says it the Red Army bled quite a bit more. But lend lease and alllllll those trucks and atuff I think made a way bigger dofference than most acknowledge to Russian winning. People need to remember Germany wasnt seen as a direct threat to America and didnt invade it. The US soldiers didnt have a lot of 'motivation' to fight them halfway across the world and nor the Italians and Vichy French they fought. They did it. More than willingly and under appalling casualties. 

[hattori]

@VladimirTarasov  I'm not sure you appreciate that with Putin's saber rattling, it has revived some of those old feelings from the cold war when Russia was THE threat to future existence.  The west also sees a lot of Putin's actions as being similar to Hitler's in the 30's when he was constantly pushing the boundaries.  I don't think there would be any problems with motivation in the west fighting any Russian aggression.  Oddly, we might be even more motivated than you should Russia attack.

[VladimirTarasov]

15 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

You do not know your history well, so I will help educate you.

Thanks

15 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The US in the 1930s and 1940s was about 25% German heritage and therefore deep cultural, industrial, and political ties with Germany.  The US was also extremely Isolationist, which meant it did not want to go to war in Europe a second time in 20 years

This heritage and industrial ties with Germany did not effect the results US troops delivered in world war 1 for the allies. I am very confident everyone knew the US will be able to help the Brits and French in world war 2 after the huge losses they were taking in the Eastern front. I am very familiar with the US's isolationism during the period lol...

15 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Do not be very sure about that.  If there are conditions which lead to a military conflict the United States Armed Forces will have motivation enough to do their job.  Especially now that Russia is clearly attacking the United States through cyber warfare.  Today more people in the US think Russia is a threat to the United States than on September 10th, 2001 thought Afghanistan was a threat.

There is obviously NO EVIDENCE to support that. You guys are the epitome of causing what is known as provocations, Show me evidence that we are waging a cyber war. Statements from the truthful US government does not count, if it is not backed up by any evidence. Again, I said the US can still face off against Russia in Ukraine, but I am more than damn sure they wouldn't be as motivated as a Russian soldier in Ukraine. As even the troops that may have fought in there fought dead motivated, we can look at the recent conflict, in Donbas. 

15 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The tactical engagements will mostly go in favor of US forces.

Inferior equipped Russian troops made very short work of "Superior" trained and equipped Georgian forces, without having the numerical superiority as said by some military experts. So until I actually see US troops fighting Russian troops, I'm not going to jump to conclusions like you other than compare what we can. 

15 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes, for sure Russia has some advantages.  However, on balance those advantages are not on the battlefield in a direct way.  The advantages also are "brittle" in that they can be degraded through continued military action

That's to say if Russia's opposition isn't crippled enough to change their mind on a full scale attack onto Russian defenses. What the US does have to worry, Russian defense is Stealth planes. Of course, these planes are not as dangerous to advanced modern AD networks, they can still cause damage to exposed forces. However, I will not jump to conclusions rather just get points out on certain capabilities.

15 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

It is why the Soviet Army was defeated by tiny Finland during the Winter War.

We weren't defeated but we also didn't get the results we wanted, we got the territories we wanted, however the heavy losses we took were a defeat on its own. Many good men died because of poor leadership. Anyways the Soviet army of the 1930s is not comparable to the Russian army of 2016. Totally different leadership, different standards, and different era. To say Russia still suffers from the same issues it did during then is basically "pulling" a Napoleon about the Russian army. And I mean underestimating. 

 

[VladimirTarasov]

15 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

You also went to Donetsk and were convinced there were no Russian forces there.  If you had explored more, talked with more people, gone to more places, approached things with more skepticism... you might have come to a different conclusion in both cases.

I've explored and talked to many people there, however I did not participate in any form of battle. I did hear the grandmothers crying that their sons and daughters being killed by shells. I'm very convinced that a certain side of the war has been committing bloody murder. Of course we can sit here and shout out the evil Russian army was in Ukraine, and ignore totally other topics that show some interesting facts about a certain "legitimate" government.

15 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Not to get us off on a political track, but Kadyrov is a murderous thug who hold power through corruption and violence.  Of course he has supporters, and apparently you met some of them.  But the average population lives in fear and the insurgency is starting to gain more strength because of it. 

Eh of course reading articles that provide no actual evidence that Kadyrov was involved with any "murderous thug" things, are to be taken serious. Kadyrov is very much supported in Chechnya, and I won't change my mind about it, unless you have legitimate evidence of him being a "murderous thug". Or a Putin crony. Or whatever name calling you guys have to offer.

5 hours ago, hattori said:

 I'm not sure you appreciate that with Putin's saber rattling, it has revived some of those old feelings from the cold war when Russia was THE threat to future existence.  The west also sees a lot of Putin's actions as being similar to Hitler's in the 30's when he was constantly pushing the boundaries.  I don't think there would be any problems with motivation in the west fighting any Russian aggression.  Oddly, we might be even more motivated than you should Russia attack.

Sorry, did I miss the hell NATO has brought to the world in the past 20 years???? I don't know for example, going to Afghanistan and causing massive damage to infrastructure there, going to Iraq killing a dictator but while at it destroying Iraqi infrastructure. Supporting illegitimate rebellions against "dictators" and making the country a worst place than when the Dictator was in charge? I for one believe that Russia is not to be blamed for threating world security. NATO calls us weak, then calls us strong? Can you please make up your minds? Are we really a threat, or are we just another way to get your propaganda off to yourselves. This is seriously ANNOYING. If what Putin is doing is saber rattling than I'm all for it. Atleast my country does not go half way across the world and destroy whole countries. Seriously comparing Putin to Hitler is the most ignorant thing to do, and I feel bad for people who think so.